A Confused streaming system - Mutec / SOtM Ultra

[Confused]

There are so many things at play; Hans Beekhuyzen came to the conclusion to add a Pink Faun Lan Isolator in the mix reduced the siblance with a guessed 90%.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPWS3Lk6y1g&t=395s

This is actually a very interesting product, it looks like the same concept as the (more expensive) Etalon Isolator. This one deserves it's own thread maybe?

[Confused]

I did have some thoughts regarding the 'noise' issues. @yabaVR make the point about SMPS's injecting noise into the system, which can lead to sound quality degradation, with another point that this becomes more apparent with highly transparent systems, which seams intuitively logical. As an example, I am sure I will find such an effect easier to hear using the 1000Pro + Blades than I would on the 10 year old Pure radio that sits in my bathroom, as an example.

At the same time, I am posting that the mR is tonally different to the SOtM kit, which we then speculate is probably because the SOtM kit has better noise filtration capabilities versus the mR. So what I am thinking is that whereas the 1000Pro and Blades might have the transparency highlight noise issues, maybe the SOtM kit adds transparency by eliminating the noise issues, at least in part. So in other words, the SOtM kit could add transparency and yet make the noise issues harder to hear, because the kit itself is eliminating the issue. Just a thought!

I will try the SMPS elimination test when I have the time, it is easy to do and 100% cost free, so why not!

[alandbush]

Devils advocate time again, sorry.

We all know from experience that audio unit matching is important. How often have we read or heard of a ‘bright’ sound being the result of very similar sounding kit.

So, is it possible that the SOTM kit is too similar to your highly revealing kit, accentuating a particular frequency range.

I know you want to keep the SOTM kit for its many other musical qualities but it’s the one that grates on the ear that you have to live with, hopefully without regret.

[Confused]

Devils advocate time again, sorry.  

We all know from experience that audio unit matching is important.  How often have we read or heard of a ‘bright’ sound being the result of very similar sounding kit.

So, is it possible that the SOTM kit is too similar to your highly revealing kit, accentuating a particular frequency range.

I know you want to keep the SOTM kit for its many other musical qualities but it’s the one that grates on the ear that you have to live with, hopefully without regret.

I know what you mean, and certainly the Blades are ruthlessly revealing when it comes to HF.  However, I remembered this earlier, here’s something I posted back in January regarding comparing mR Shareport versu CI AirPlay:


A slightly strange result. CI AirPlay nominally sounds great, but there was something slightly disconcerting about the sound, although everything sounds crisp and much as it should, it somehow not that pleasant after a while, the words harsh and digital hash come to mind. Another thing, something a little odd was happening to the accuracy in sound staging, it was a little messy, with vocals that normally come from slightly to the right, sounding less clearly positioned and coming more from the right, I even did a quick left / right channel check to make sure the channels had not somehow been transposed, which they had not. Strange that I felt the need to check though! Versus the mR/Mutec, the treble was noticeably brighter too, a bit like the treble had been turned up +4dB or something. Overall, listening via Sharport / mR / Mutec was a far more pleasant experience.

This backs up my conclusion from the weekend, it is the mR that is a touch on the dull side, not the SOtM kit that is bright.  Maybe this apparent shortcoming with the mR just happened to suit my ears, room and speakers?  I’m not sure myself yet to be honest, I need more time listening to a wider selection of music / recordings.

I also recall the comments about the mR in this review:

https://www.audiostream.com/content/audi...re-vs-sotm

The reviewer refers to the “microRendu’s somewhat dark sound”, which sounds awfully like a touch of treble roll-off to me. Plus, if I do find that this characteristic of the mR just simply works with the Blades whereas the SOtM kit does not, I can mimic it almost perfectly (and cost free) by nudging the Devialet’s treble setting down 2dB. A move to the dark side!

Meanwhile, I just need some decent listening time without tinkering and A/B testing over and over again with the same tracks. So the plan now is to listen to lots of music. What a radical plan!

[thumb5]

In this situation I might recommend the Audio Note method: http://audionote.co.uk/articles/art_audio_hell.shtml.

If nothing else it might act as an ear/brain re-boot mechanism...

[Confused]

In this situation I might recommend the Audio Note method: http://audionote.co.uk/articles/art_audio_hell.shtml.

If nothing else it might act as an ear/brain re-boot mechanism...

Ha!  I’m not sure if you posted this before my edit, but I could not agree more.

There is a certain psychology involved when you spend lots of cash on kit then overanalyse it’s performance, the brain reboot is exactly what I need now. 

NEXT DAY EDIT:  I did genuinely laugh out loud last night when I read thumb's post above.  I am actually familiar with the Audionote article per the link, so I knew exactly what it was as soon as I saw it.  There is a point here though, much of the article per the link I do not agree with, not because it is definitively wrong, it is more of a case that I have my own way of doing things, I know what works for me.  With that said, in amongst the stuff I do not agree with, there is some good advice.  As an example, by last Sunday I knew I had been listening to the same tracks far too often over the last couple of weeks, so I did add some new selections for Sundays' A/B testing, and it was these 'new' tracks that were most helpful in demonstrating exactly what the SOtM bundle can do versus the microRendu.  So whilst I disagree with much of what is written in article, I would also say it is well worth a read, just to question your own way of doing things.  It is good food for thought for anyone interested in equipment evaluation.

[yabaVR]

I've one more thought concerning matching audio units and the mR sounding more 'dull' than the SOtM-Kit.

We're talking digital here. We don't talk frequency respond or two units matching/equalizing one another.
In a digital signal you can't say to the bits 'Hey you treble bits, increase another +2dB' unless you set a specific filter on the digital signal to do just that. And you should clearly see that in the frequency respond.

It's different to analogue audio units in the past where there were actually units of different brands that could match perfectly.
In the digital realm if you think something sounds 'better' e.g. in the bass you might be right but it would be plausible that the whole frequency range has gained from this 'better' sound although you are concentrated on the bass at that moment.

My thoughts on why @Confused  hears a assuming +2dB in the highs with the SOtM-Kit is, that the SOtM-Kit has better timing, has a more 'in phase' and a more precise digital signal that leads to more dynamic in a shorter timeframe which can be experienced (and may be measured) as 'louder'. And maybe it is just appearent in the highs because our/his ears are the most sensitive in that frequency range. Again a digital kit that sounds better should sound better in every area of frequency...at least this is my experience in several occasions.

gui

[yabaVR]

In this situation I might recommend the Audio Note method: http://audionote.co.uk/articles/art_audio_hell.shtml.

If nothing else it might act as an ear/brain re-boot mechanism...

To be honest the text of Mr. Leonard Norwitz has so many flaws, assumptions and constructed comparisons and was written way back in 1993. I don't want to say that there're no proper passages in his text (see below) but he for himself is concentrating on 'Mono-Recordings from the 1950s and the 1960s'. For me he's an oddbod from the past who claims to have the clue and most of the audiophile freaks have no clue at all and are all misleaded.

Allthough he arguments on old technic it nevertheless bears some truth in it (at least in this quote):
"If it weren't for the fact that detail in video is made up of such large particles as compared to the micro-events which exist in audio, we might not have been misled about the term "detail", and would have called it by its proper name, which is "grain". Grain creates the perception of more events, particularly in the treble region, because they are made to stand out from the musical texture in an unnaturally highlighted form. In true high-resolution audio systems, grain disappears and is replaced by a seamless flow of connected musical happenings. [cf. "As Time Goes By" Positive Feedback Magazine, Vol. 4, No. 4-5, Fall '93]"


I think he's right in what he says here but as this quote is from the 90's (and the 90's analogue/digital technic) he actually never heard a decent digtal system like a Devialet at that time.
But he got one very good spotting here allthough this is connected to analogue audio from that time. He speaks of grain leading to unnatural texture misperceived as more micro details and that might just be right for the digital world too allthough we don't have a 'grain' in digital in respect to his arguement.
My assumption here is that 'jitterized' micro details could be interpreted as 'digital grain' that can give the illusion of more micro details (as e.g. with SAM switched on). I think a Devialet is very transparent on that and the more you get rid of that 'digital grain' (as the SOtM-kit does) the last passage of his quote comes into play.


gui

[Confused]

I've one more thought concerning matching audio units and the mR sounding more 'dull' than the SOtM-Kit.

We're talking digital here. We don't talk frequency respond or two units matching/equalizing one another.
In a digital signal you can't say to the bits 'Hey you treble bits, increase another +2dB' unless you set a specific filter on the digital signal to do just that. And you should clearly see that in the frequency respond.

It's different to analogue audio units in the past where there were actually units of different brands that could match perfectly.
In the digital realm if you think something sounds 'better' e.g. in the bass you might be right but it would be plausible that the whole frequency range has gained from this 'better' sound although you are concentrated on the bass at that moment.

My thoughts on why @Confused  hears a assuming +2dB in the highs with the SOtM-Kit is, that the SOtM-Kit has better timing, has a more 'in phase' and a more precise digital signal that leads to more dynamic in a shorter timeframe which can be experienced (and may be measured) as 'louder'. And maybe it is just appearent in the highs because our/his ears are the most sensitive in that frequency range. Again a digital kit that sounds better should sound better in every area of frequency...at least this is my experience in several occasions.

gui

I agree with a lot of this, but I cannot agree with the conclusion because it does not fit all the facts.  Clearly the "bits" or not the culprit here, we all seam to be agree on that one, but the problem is that the microRendu alone appears to have the apparent treble roll off issue.  Consider that the "increased" treble is apparent with the SOtM kit, a cheap and cheerful Pioneer BDP-450 and CI board AirPlay.  In fact, of all the ways I have of streaming from my PC to the Devialet, AIR, Roon AIR, mR, SOtM & various CI board modes, CI AirPlay is just about the most incoherent sounding of the lot, and yet this still his the apparently more prominent treble.  So I still go back to the theory that this is noise related, although I am guessing here and have no idea of the specifics of the mechanisms involved.  It just fits the observations better. Another possibility is that the mR does actually have some kind of digital filter, not impossible, it is basically a mini computer.

As a final point, we can have a discussion about the good and bad in the text from Mr Norwitz, but I think @thumb5 has it right when he says I need a brain re-boot.

[alandbush]

As a final point, we can have a discussion about the good and bad in the text from Mr Norwitz, but I think @thumb5 has it right when he says I need a brain re-boot.

Will you be following the appropriate reboot procedure?

1) powering down and waiting for the inner voices to dissipate
2) disconnecting from the audio world for a period
3) perhaps returning back to factory settings, I.e the real world
4) changing your configuration, I.e listening position
5) perhaps even updating your firmware, careful with those chips ?